memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:The Man Trap (episode)
Not quite clear why someone has removed a lot of interesting and useful trivia from this page about the Swahili spoken, Wah Chang's design of the salt vampire, and the Wrigley's Pleasure Planet joke. This info has been removed twice! Standard operating procedure would dictate that you provide reasons for removing data from a page, such as inaccuracies, on this talk page. :I've reverted the reversion, howevger, Alan is correct -- this information is mostly misplaced. :Information about Bruce Watson's performance doesn't go here, it would probably be best placed at the article about Bruce Watson or in a background note at Green (Crewman). :The information about the Swahili language should go -- you guessed it -- at the article called Swahili. :Thanks for your help suggesting the moves, we can probably get this article cleaned up soon -- by removing this extraneous info to the correct articles, rather than leaving it at the wrong place here. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 00:02, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC) ::When Gvsualan removed information from this article on 1 Jan 2006, he noted in the edit summary: :::moved several points from background to more appropriate pages regarding item/individual, rm many "nitpickish" references that really don't qualify as "background" notes or are mentioned elsewhere. ::I just checked and found the information about the planet's name at Wrigley's Pleasure Planet, which is where that information belongs according to discussions we had about background information and "nitpicks". -- Cid Highwind 00:04, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC) With that in mind, I'm not really sure about the recent revertion from Alan's version to the one still containing information that has already been moved. -- Cid Highwind 00:05, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC) :I think it would have been great if the part about Swahili had actually been removed to the Swahili article though -- there's little in the way of useful information there, nothing made it over there when the information was removed. If the reference to the Swahili translation had been placed in that article, then i would have considered it moved. :It might even have been useful if policy was followed and the information had been placed here on this talk page. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk :: You may wish to check Swahili language, because that is where I moved the information to, therefore "nothing made it over there when the information was removed" is quite inaccurate. Otherwise, as Cid have observed, all useful information was properly moved as I stated in what limited room the summary bar allowed. --Alan del Beccio 00:18, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC) :::* Watch Bruce Watson's funny double-take when Yeoman Rand slaps his hand. He turns and looks directly at the camera in frustration, in an Oliver Hardy manner. Watson also played the creature as unfamiliar with the doors of the ship, nearly stumbling out of the botany lab in terror at the reaction of Sulu's plant, Gertrude. ::The above does not qualify as "background" info. --Alan del Beccio 00:20, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC) :I stand corrected, of course, Alan -- my apologies. Anyway, I just reverted to make sure we hadn't lost any text by the wayside -- and I think it might be useful for the Green (Crewman) or Bruce Watson articles to get the nitpicky info, and i do think its important to explain where the info went to the IP users who started this line of questioning... :but again, i'm tired, begging apology. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk ::To avoid such confusion in the future, can we perhaps agree to either put actual links to target pages in the edit summary, or if there's not enough space, to comment on the talk page? -- Cid Highwind 00:30, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC) ::: Wow, didn't realize I would need my boots for this... Anyway, why don't we just impliment some sort of outline in regards to what belongs in the background sections of episode pages, per the discussion on ten forward and per the simple logic that 'background information' means exactly that...'behind the scenes information', not 'nit picks', 'funny observations' or other data that is more relevant and useful on the pages the data is about ("double your pleasure" = origin of the name Wrigley's Pleasure Planet). Otherwise, the fact that the summary bar was used does explain to the IP user (who check's the history) where it went. If we had a Memory Alpha:Background or link within another page about page usage we could simply link there as well, rather than finding or referring to a Ten Forward conversation that isn't right at our fingertips. --Alan del Beccio 00:59, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC) ::A guideline page to link to in such cases sounds good - perhaps called [[Memory Alpha:Background Information|Memory Alpha:Background information]] / MA:BI ;) -- Cid Highwind 01:16, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC) Thanks for clarifying, everybody. I'm glad the information still survives elsewhere. I just didn't know where it had gone. I'm not sure that it's such a bad idea to have information in more than one place, however. I think it would be good to always leave a notation on the "talk" page any time deletions are made. - Kurt of North Bend Nitpicks I have removed the following text as the points seem little more than nitpicks: :*At two points in this episode, the doors can be heard opening and closing without the overdubbed sound effect. Once when the-creature-as-Green leaves the botany lab and again during the final scene on the bridge. :*Kirk's communicator flops open as he is crawling along the ground during the shoot-out with Crater. Aholland 16:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC) ::I've re-added them. They seem more along the lines of "production notes", in that they describe occurrences within the episode. They would be "nitpicks" if they attempted to phrase the comments as if these were mistakes, or problems with the production. I think its fine to have short notes about staging details. -- Captain M.K.B. 18:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC) I'm confused. "Kirk's communicator flops open, which it shouldn't do" is a nitpick, but "Kirk's communicator flops open" isn't? "A sound effect was not used, but should have been to be consistent" is a nitpick, but "a sound effect was not used" isn't? This seems an extraordinarily low standard for any kind of commentary on minor production errors. All someone has to do is just describe a production problem, leave the inference that it is a continuity error or production mistake, and it stays? Surely that can't be right, as staging details generally do not have the inference of a minor error having been made. So . . . why are these okay to remain again? Aholland 19:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC) :::They add no critic to the episode or writing, they are just pointing out that something happened went wrong. "Gates McFadden can be seen wearing a watch in scene XYZ" is fine, but "Crusher does have a 20th century watch even though something like this does not exist in the 24th century" is the wrong, non-neutral tone. --Kobi 19:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC) ::Things which seem to be exceptions to a rule can be noted, i believe (i.e. "this was the only episode this effect/premise was used/not used.") or notes about the production (as i've said before, "The set was reused from another planet set/another movie set.." etc.", "The costume lacked the patches used in later appearances..", etc) -- it becomes a nitpick when the writer attempt to correlate it to some problem they have with the note (i.e. "How are we supposed to believe these two aliens have the same wall decorations?", "The costumes are all wrong because they don't correspond to Navy rank systems..", etc..). A production note tells you that something happened or appeared a certain way, but a nitpick implies that there is a problem with it doing so. Keep in mind that specific observances could be moved to the separate article, and should be removed from the "background notes" of the episode page -- for example, if a phaser beam is blue instead of red, maybe it goes on phasers' page(s?) -- Captain M.K.B. 19:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Thanks - I think I understand the distinction you are trying to make. I still think it allows nitpicks in the guise of production info, but since it evidently hasn't been a huge problem thus far, I'll just be quiet and move along on this one. Aholland 20:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)